From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from oak.phenome.org (unknown [193.110.157.52]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 159DF23EA8B; Mon, 2 Feb 2026 12:15:44 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=193.110.157.52 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1770034547; cv=none; b=C7bFMWhEDLSRSoYNrjoGdT4pCNsKgQw4r+nUpaApH+zEcTND63BEmT/JjafaaNec98fj0MPkNTfFkBfBPX86DeGihnulyfUgjIdERVYOG9jBgBDQEDDifG/1n/ruapeVrdKbj7a3Gc53f46DvJC4WI6kol0RgnylV0nsEi/a0es= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1770034547; c=relaxed/simple; bh=J5YAUEvdRSPdIe0eFvACFFSbO6JcdQgRSZZxwU2kLRU=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=Gvk3L1Mw6w668wtPZ7+oBTkLrqid/jmjexYxnT4LfLsBUaUHef4dhVavcEEaKk+q5bUAcpXyW3onw9riuU7N+0kDyR0mxoirsDTYB3yFlbLVYESFsXdpA/EEaiLKOVkImk7Lz/b8BrmW8Ah/QPil/MxYbm6DMgddDS07duQZQrc= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=phenome.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=phenome.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=phenome.org header.i=@phenome.org header.b=lHdwoUwx; arc=none smtp.client-ip=193.110.157.52 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=phenome.org Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=phenome.org Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=phenome.org header.i=@phenome.org header.b="lHdwoUwx" Authentication-Results: oak.phenome.org (amavisd); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) reason="pass (just generated, assumed good)" header.d=phenome.org DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=phenome.org; h= in-reply-to:content-disposition:content-type:content-type :mime-version:references:message-id:subject:subject:from:from :date:date:received; s=oak1; t=1770034542; x=1770898543; bh=J5YA UEvdRSPdIe0eFvACFFSbO6JcdQgRSZZxwU2kLRU=; b=lHdwoUwx2joWLS4FlpXc UM5HqfMgCeTj2EVirubP+HrLXnFhSbab7KGj4jdKsAC8hjHBMKD1WietnKYxOndb OZHeHlgoMK/iXwo9dVymB0BlSYTO+b1bYVHyZX5wE7YUxI4EXeQk3uXMLG2mfGVf en+Ts0b/ZXaIXRE8arKx5XvzVti51wD5d5bHtD6JkTcpSKA8fWecVu2qsxwlLX6r PWhCod1rMs3bDs07wEMe8JLnYsNg5H1qsqKlfGWwYVcD2aEuTcvOlNqlWxK7QqN7 5rdQ06dcT4ht21TUy7lZW0rtOExhnypiKzmbon1yne+lE3Ds4wO7YvLfT0ENSN2n rg== X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd at oak.phenome.org Received: by oak.phenome.org (Postfix); Mon, 02 Feb 2026 13:15:42 +0100 (CET) Date: Mon, 2 Feb 2026 13:15:41 +0100 From: Antony Antony To: Jakub Kicinski Cc: Antony Antony , Steffen Klassert , netdev@vger.kernel.org, "David S . Miller" , David Ahern , Eric Dumazet , Paolo Abeni , Herbert Xu , Shuah Khan , devel@linux-ipsec.org, linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org, Tobias Brunner , Simon Horman , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [devel-ipsec] Re: [PATCH net-next v4 2/2] selftests: net: add ICMP error source address test over xfrm tunnel Message-ID: References: <20260129184318.53b1dabf@kernel.org> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: netdev@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20260129184318.53b1dabf@kernel.org> On Thu, Jan 29, 2026 at 06:43:18PM -0800, Jakub Kicinski via Devel wrote: > On Wed, 28 Jan 2026 11:20:45 +0100 Antony Antony wrote: > > Test that ICMP error messages generated by an IPsec gateway use > > the correct source address (the gateway's address, not the > > unreachable destination). > > could you check / fix shellcheck warnings? lots of warnings. It looks like x-mas lights are still on:) > > +In xfrm_state.sh line 115: > + $ksft_skip) > + ^--------^ SC2254 (warning): Quote expansions in case patterns to match literally rather than as a glob. I will add quotes to. Thare 30-40 of those! > > +In xfrm_state.sh line 157: > + [ -n "${NS_R1}" ] && ns_r1="ip netns exec ${NS_R1}" && ns_active="${ns_active} $NS_R1" > + ^---^ SC2034 (warning): ns_r1 appears unused. Verify use (or export if used externally). > + > + > +In xfrm_state.sh line 162: > + [ -n "${NS_B}" ] && ns_b="ip netns exec ${NS_B}" && ns_active="${ns_active} $NS_B" > + ^--^ SC2034 (warning): ns_b appears unused. Verify use (or export if used externally). > > +In xfrm_state.sh line 166: > + local ns_cmd=$(nscmd $1) > + ^----^ SC2155 (warning): Declare and assign separately to avoid masking return values. other shell checks are harder to fix. +In xfrm_state.sh line 417: test_unreachable_ipv6() { ^-- SC2329 (info): This function is never invoked. Check usage (or ignored if invoked indirectly). those are invoked indirectly. eval code I would like to keep. Would that work for you? are you aiming fori strictly zero warnings? regards, -antony